2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

6,851 to 6,900 of 7,079 << first < prev | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You think you're bummed out about the election results?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

This isn't over..

I'm going to call Brexit 3.0 to be the next populism victory to arise in France and the entire European Union is going to unravel in an ugly uprise of far-right nationalist movements.

Considering the uprising in disdain for foreigners in Europe, as well as the recent calamities due to the refugee crisis, you very well may be right.

The world is slowly dropping away from the connections that have kept it relatively peaceful for years. This does not bode well for the future.

Sovereign Court

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

This isn't over..

I'm going to call Brexit 3.0 to be the next populism victory to arise in France and the entire European Union is going to unravel in an ugly uprise of far-right nationalist movements.

Kind of sad considering that the European Union was an answer to isolationism and nationalism that lead to two world wars. We could see a world as divided as ever setting the stage for the final world war.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Killer_GM wrote:
The New York Times (who's profits crashed 95% this past year incidentally) has just stated that Trump has a 95% chance of winning Pennsylvania. That boys & girls, is the ballgame. Trump is president. Hillary for prison.

Leaving aside Donald Trump--which is a big thing to leave aside--let me just say how terrifying it is that you are suggesting, even in jest, that the loser of a free election should face jail time. That is not the way that a free country operates.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm suggesting that a Secretary of State who has sold/peddled influence to numerous foreign entities and governments for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which the FBI is currently investigating (unlike the emails) is deserving of incarceration if her guilt can be proven, which I believe it will be.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Grumbaki wrote:
Can't wait to see that majestic new wall!

At this point, I feel like rooting for the kaiju.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Norv wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
The New York Times (who's profits crashed 95% this past year incidentally) has just stated that Trump has a 95% chance of winning Pennsylvania. That boys & girls, is the ballgame. Trump is president. Hillary for prison.
Leaving aside Donald Trump--which is a big thing to leave aside--let me just say how terrifying it is that you are suggesting, even in jest, that the loser of a free election should face jail time. That is not the way that a free country operates.

He's not suggesting that because she lost/will lose. He's saying that because a lot of people think Hillary is a straight up criminal.


Killer_GM wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Health care costs were skyrocketing before Obama took office as well. The problem is the ACA didn't really address increasing prices, it just mandated increased access.

Right now, it's already a "free market" for health care. There's lots of government involvement, but mostly it's subsidies which are reducing cost increases. Reducing government involvement is only going to let rates go up faster, while completely taking away access from probably 10-30 million people. In 4 years your rates will have continue to climb AND it might be possible for your provider to deny you coverage altogether again.

What cost Reducing are you talking about? Arizona premiums are going up over 100 % in 2017. Everyone's premiums are going thru the roof. Insurance companies are pulling out of Obamacare faster than a 3rd world banana republic, because they're losing hundreds of millions of dollars per year. It is unsustainable, without bleeding everyone who pays into the system to subsidize everyone who doesn't. I'm a healthcare professional. I see this every day.

I didn't say cost reductions. Double checking. Yup, didn't say cost reductions anywhere.


This election has been slanting Trump's way for some time, even before the email-gate re-investigations and then cessations. The polls ALWAYS slant Democrat. The final results are always closer. The polls never tell you what the real outcome is going to be, as they always make it seem like the Democrat candidate is doing better than they actually are.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Killer_GM wrote:
I'm suggesting that a Secretary of State who has sold/peddled influence to numerous foreign entities and governments for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which the FBI is currently investigating (unlike the emails) is deserving of incarceration if her guilt can be proven, which I believe it will be.

She has been investigated. Again and again and again and again and again. And NOTHING has been found.

So yes, you're free to believe that, and there are MANY problems with HRC, but I cannot understand this line of thinking.


I should say, "nothing criminal." There are real problems with poor judgment, etc.


"Reducing cost increases" what is that, if not cost reductions.


Be interesting to see how the various suits against Mr. Trump go as well. IIRC Gloria Allred was slavering at the thought of dealing with him. And then there's the Trump University, and so on.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Killer_GM wrote:


Guy, single payer is a nightmare. I have family that lives in Norway and Sweden. I never cease to be amazed at the misguided romanticism with this lousy system. Norway expropriates/nationalizes industries, and hits its citizens up with a 60% federal income tax, plus a 20% value added tax, and they can barely pay the bills. And in 20 years from now, when the immigrant population in their country doubles or triples, they won't be able to do that. There is Zero chance that their system will work here in the USA. And are you ready to pay 60% of your income to the feds to have their...

First of all I'm Canadian, I'm very happy with our national system, second of all, the US pays, per capita more then any other western country on your health care system. The US is already putting more money into their health care system then Norway or Sweden. Employers pay into that cost, as does the government, and then the private citizens. Because there's few national programs drug companies and health care providers have more power in the negotiation of pricing, the veterans program for example enjoys lower drug costs then most other plans because they're a national program and can ask for lower prices. If the US had a single payer program they could easily force drug costs down and balance hospital fees across the country.

Begs the question: How can you afford lower drug costs?

Grand Lodge

Hey maybe Trump will get distracted by that petty vendetta for his entire term. Way I see it either he doesn't follow through on his promised prosecution of Clinton or he has to stick with it and like every time before that she has been investigated they find nothing.


The Norv wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
I'm suggesting that a Secretary of State who has sold/peddled influence to numerous foreign entities and governments for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which the FBI is currently investigating (unlike the emails) is deserving of incarceration if her guilt can be proven, which I believe it will be.

She has been investigated. Again and again and again and again and again. And NOTHING has been found.

So yes, you're free to believe that, and there are MANY problems with HRC, but I cannot understand this line of thinking.

Those investigations were inadequate, and continually hampered by Clinton and her cronies who didn't play ball, and an Obama DOJ who didn't even attempt to seriously investigate her. If Trump wants to go after her, the evidence will be found. Hell, 20% of US uranium is now going to Russia, and investors donated millions to the Clinton foundation. That example alone (out of many) ought to do it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Norv wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
The New York Times (who's profits crashed 95% this past year incidentally) has just stated that Trump has a 95% chance of winning Pennsylvania. That boys & girls, is the ballgame. Trump is president. Hillary for prison.
Leaving aside Donald Trump--which is a big thing to leave aside--let me just say how terrifying it is that you are suggesting, even in jest, that the loser of a free election should face jail time. That is not the way that a free country operates.

I think its pretty obvious by now that a lot people don't want a "free country" anymore. Therein lies the problem.

Sovereign Court

Killer_GM wrote:
This election has been slanting Trump's way for some time, even before the email-gate re-investigations and then cessations. The polls ALWAYS slant Democrat. The final results are always closer. The polls never tell you what the real outcome is going to be, as they always make it seem like the Democrat candidate is doing better than they actually are.

In part that's because NY, CA, & IL have pretty consistently gone overwhelmingly blue, which leads to a lot of "wasted" extra votes in those states due to how the electoral college works. (To play Devil's Advocate - there is an argument that a lot of red voters don't even bother voting in many places in those states because of how overwhelmingly they lose nearly every election.)

Also - there is talk of the "shy" Trump voter who didn't want to tell the pollsters that they were voting for him. (Likely ones who don't actually like Trump - but were instead voting against Clinton.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Killer_GM wrote:
If Trump wants to go after her, the evidence will be found.

Well duh, if the President really wants someone in jail, it's kinda hard to stop them with or without actual evidence.

The Uranium deal went through 9 different federal agencies before being approved through a Canadian middleman. It wasn't a clandestine operation with Hillary in a trenchcoat handing a paper to a russian cossack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Orange is the new black?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Killer_GM wrote:
The Norv wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
I'm suggesting that a Secretary of State who has sold/peddled influence to numerous foreign entities and governments for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which the FBI is currently investigating (unlike the emails) is deserving of incarceration if her guilt can be proven, which I believe it will be.

She has been investigated. Again and again and again and again and again. And NOTHING has been found.

So yes, you're free to believe that, and there are MANY problems with HRC, but I cannot understand this line of thinking.

Those investigations were inadequate, and continually hampered by Clinton and her cronies who didn't play ball, and an Obama DOJ who didn't even attempt to seriously investigate her. If Trump wants to go after her, the evidence will be found. Hell, 20% of US uranium is now going to Russia, and investors donated millions to the Clinton foundation. That example alone (out of many) ought to do it.

Again, the "information" you flush into our world through your toilet portal is less actual and more a confection of your lower bowel.

You need to PROVE your wild accusations. With a better source than some paranoid right wing blog.


Killer_GM wrote:
"Reducing cost increases" what is that, if not cost reductions.

Say a loaf of bread costs $10. The price rises every year by $1. So next year it will be $11, the year after that $12, and so on.

Reducing the cost increase to 50 cents means that next year the cost will be $10.50, the year after that $11, and so on.

Reducing the cost means that the price has been lowered. So the loaf of bread goes from $10 to 9$. And then the cost increases kick in again. So it goes up to $10 next year, $11 after that, and so on.

Reducing an increase in cost and reducing a cost are not the same thing, at all. Almost entirely unrelated concepts.


Killer_GM wrote:
"Reducing cost increases" what is that, if not cost reductions.

It's not a cost reduction. In fact, it's a cost increase.

Just curious, did your health care costs go up from 1990-2008? Cause for the majority of the country, they did. They increased significantly over that time as a % of GDP and worker contributions.

People rail against the ACA all the time. It's a poor stop-gap for our health care system, we're going to have to move past it.

I think that if we want to call ourselves the Greatest Nation on Earth (tm), then the majority of bankruptcies and home foreclosures shouldn't be related to medical bills. The only solution I've ever heard from Republicans for this is that "we should let the market fix it".

Guess what? The market wants to foreclose on homes. Shareholders don't give a s~&+ about cancer patients. They care about stock prices.


Pennysylvania has gone Trump. Election is over.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Killer_GM wrote:
The Norv wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
I'm suggesting that a Secretary of State who has sold/peddled influence to numerous foreign entities and governments for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which the FBI is currently investigating (unlike the emails) is deserving of incarceration if her guilt can be proven, which I believe it will be.

She has been investigated. Again and again and again and again and again. And NOTHING has been found.

So yes, you're free to believe that, and there are MANY problems with HRC, but I cannot understand this line of thinking.

Those investigations were inadequate, and continually hampered by Clinton and her cronies who didn't play ball, and an Obama DOJ who didn't even attempt to seriously investigate her. If Trump wants to go after her, the evidence will be found. Hell, 20% of US uranium is now going to Russia, and investors donated millions to the Clinton foundation. That example alone (out of many) ought to do it.

That Russian Uranium deal occurred in 2010. Yes, she was gaining donations from the company that was purchasing the uranium...starting in 2008, long before that deal was even on the table. And it was not JUST the Secretary of State that chose to approve the deal. It was 9 Departments, all of which could have chosen to say no to the deal at any time.


Scavion wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
If Trump wants to go after her, the evidence will be found.

Well duh, if the President really wants someone in jail, it's kinda hard to stop them with or without actual evidence.

The Uranium deal went through 9 different federal agencies before being approved through a Canadian middleman. It wasn't a clandestine operation with Hillary in a trenchcoat handing a paper to a russian cossack.

Only legitimate evidence is acceptable.

Those weren't imaginary millions donated to the Clinton Foundation by a Cossack.


Bruunwald wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
The Norv wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
I'm suggesting that a Secretary of State who has sold/peddled influence to numerous foreign entities and governments for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which the FBI is currently investigating (unlike the emails) is deserving of incarceration if her guilt can be proven, which I believe it will be.

She has been investigated. Again and again and again and again and again. And NOTHING has been found.

So yes, you're free to believe that, and there are MANY problems with HRC, but I cannot understand this line of thinking.

Those investigations were inadequate, and continually hampered by Clinton and her cronies who didn't play ball, and an Obama DOJ who didn't even attempt to seriously investigate her. If Trump wants to go after her, the evidence will be found. Hell, 20% of US uranium is now going to Russia, and investors donated millions to the Clinton foundation. That example alone (out of many) ought to do it.

Again, the "information" you flush into our world through your toilet portal is less actual and more a confection of your lower bowel.

You need to PROVE your wild accusations. With a better source than some paranoid right wing blog.

It would appear that the majority of the American people believe my 'wild accusations.' Your party nominated a hopelessly flawed candidate with a known history of corruption. You pay the price.

Grand Lodge

Yes and what other possible reason would someone donate to a national charity for?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
"Reducing cost increases" what is that, if not cost reductions.

It's not a cost reduction. In fact, it's a cost increase.

Just curious, did your health care costs go up from 1990-2008? Cause for the majority of the country, they did. They increased significantly over that time as a % of GDP and worker contributions.

People rail against the ACA all the time. It's a poor stop-gap for our health care system, we're going to have to move past it.

I think that if we want to call ourselves the Greatest Nation on Earth (tm), then the majority of bankruptcies and home foreclosures shouldn't be related to medical bills. The only solution I've ever heard from Republicans for this is that "we should let the market fix it".

Guess what? The market wants to foreclose on homes. Shareholders don't give a s*!@ about cancer patients. They care about stock prices.

The increase in healthcare had nothing to do with Obamacare. My premiums went up as well and my Cigna plans had nothing to do with Obamacare. The ACA only opened up access and was built with the intention that the insurance companies kept their fat profit margins. With the increased costs of covering more insured, keeping those profits meant jacking up rates.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bruunwald wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
The Norv wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
I'm suggesting that a Secretary of State who has sold/peddled influence to numerous foreign entities and governments for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which the FBI is currently investigating (unlike the emails) is deserving of incarceration if her guilt can be proven, which I believe it will be.

She has been investigated. Again and again and again and again and again. And NOTHING has been found.

So yes, you're free to believe that, and there are MANY problems with HRC, but I cannot understand this line of thinking.

Those investigations were inadequate, and continually hampered by Clinton and her cronies who didn't play ball, and an Obama DOJ who didn't even attempt to seriously investigate her. If Trump wants to go after her, the evidence will be found. Hell, 20% of US uranium is now going to Russia, and investors donated millions to the Clinton foundation. That example alone (out of many) ought to do it.

Again, the "information" you flush into our world through your toilet portal is less actual and more a confection of your lower bowel.

You need to PROVE your wild accusations. With a better source than some paranoid right wing blog.

Given that Trump was able to win this election, I don't think he does.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Killer_GM wrote:
Bruunwald wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
The Norv wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
I'm suggesting that a Secretary of State who has sold/peddled influence to numerous foreign entities and governments for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which the FBI is currently investigating (unlike the emails) is deserving of incarceration if her guilt can be proven, which I believe it will be.

She has been investigated. Again and again and again and again and again. And NOTHING has been found.

So yes, you're free to believe that, and there are MANY problems with HRC, but I cannot understand this line of thinking.

Those investigations were inadequate, and continually hampered by Clinton and her cronies who didn't play ball, and an Obama DOJ who didn't even attempt to seriously investigate her. If Trump wants to go after her, the evidence will be found. Hell, 20% of US uranium is now going to Russia, and investors donated millions to the Clinton foundation. That example alone (out of many) ought to do it.

Again, the "information" you flush into our world through your toilet portal is less actual and more a confection of your lower bowel.

You need to PROVE your wild accusations. With a better source than some paranoid right wing blog.

It would appear that the majority of the American people believe my 'wild accusations.' Your party nominated a hopelessly flawed candidate with a known history of corruption. You pay the price.

Don't take a vote for Trump as an idea that they believe that Hillary is a criminal. There are legitimate reasons to dislike Hillary. But throwing out a so called scandal that is easily researched and proven to not be anything of note is not one of them.

Also, I'd like to point out that Donald Trump is just as, if not more, flawed than Hillary. He just happened to tap into a far larger base than Hillary ever could.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is probably the biggest electoral upset in modern American history.

What's funny is that my relatives are all pro-Democrat fanatics for some reason. They have actually gone out and torn down GOP signs in previous elections. This year one relative bragged about how he had gotten some Trump campaign funding solicitations in the mail, and he had mailed them back an empty envelope purely out of spite (so the Trump campaign would have to pay the back postage).

But the best part is my relatives actually all voted for Trump in the primaries. They thought they were sabotaging the Republican party by doing so, and thus ensuring Clinton's victory.

They probably were sabotaging the Republican party's ruling elite, but that ended up hurting Clinton much more than helping her. Because when Trump won the GOP primary the election essentially became an establishment vs anti-establishment contest.

Hillary's numerous Big Media, Big Business, and Big Hollywood backers (and my relatives) simply have no idea how many long-ignored voters have nothing but seething contempt for the Washington DC elite of both parties, and we've been waiting for a chance like this to come along for a long damn time. My whole life.

I had told my relatives that I had given up on the American political system. That I would never vote again (after one furtive protest vote for Kerry against Bush). That there was really no difference between the Dems and Repubs on the issues that I cared about. That it was a good-ole-boy system full of gerrymandering, superdelegates, and rules designed to make it impossible for a third party candidate ever to win high office in this country.

Then Trump unexpectedly came along and I had to tell my relatives I would actually vote one more time. Because a huge electoral upset had put an anti-establishment politician in play for the presidency, and I doubted this chance would ever come again.

Trump would lose of course, and America's ruling elite would get together to make sure another anti-establishment candidate would never rise. But I wouldn't be staying true to my beliefs if I sat out this probably once in a lifetime chance.

So imagine my surprise when Trump is doing so well. My pro-Clinton relatives who voted for Trump in the primaries but for Clinton in the actual election are probably having fits right now!

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:

then the majority of bankruptcies and home foreclosures shouldn't be related to medical bills. The only solution I've ever heard from Republicans for this is that "we should let the market fix it".

Guess what? The market wants to foreclose on homes.

A bit nitpicky - while true of bankruptcy (In the mid 50's% I believe), it's not true of foreclosures.

The majority of foreclosures are people who get negative equity due to housing prices and just decide to stop paying even when they can afford it.

(I actually worked in foreclosure a few years back, and I don't feel bad for the vast majority of them. Most of them made the 3.5% down-payment, 1-3 payments, and then sat in the house for 2-4 years free of charge - the cost to the bank raising the interest rates for everyone else and contributing to the housing downturn.)


Cause people never refinance their home to pay of other debts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lenders don't want to foreclose unless they have no alternative. What they want is all of that tasty interest money every month paid for an asset they don't have to

  • pay taxes on,
  • perform maintenance and repairs on,
  • keep up with lawn care,
  • plaster with termite and other pest control treatments,
  • insure against damage, disasters, fire and floods
  • ad nauseam.

The costs to the entities holding those foreclosed mortgages goes beyond lost interest and principle payments. Court fees. Attorney fees. Some measure of real estate brokerage fees. Lawn maintenance, pest control and typically hefty bids from contractors for repairs. Some of the last are extensive. Once in a while it is a total tear down. Don't get me started on the row homes in circa 2009 Baltimore a few blocks from Inner Harbor! Ever seen a 4 story tree growing out of the roof of a 3 story row home? Not pretty. Okay, the tree was gorgeous. The neighborhood was a death sentence waiting to happen if you crossed paths with the wrong bunch of 'bangers.

Municipalities don't want foreclosures on real property nor - when applicable - repossession of personal property either. They want homeowners paying them fat piles of property taxes every month bundled into the escrow portion of that mortgage payment on all of the real property they can get away with. More than a few states don't assess income tax and/or personal property taxes. The dragon's horde proportion of municipalities assess real property taxes in some form, sometimes several different forms such as Maryland's infamous 'rain tax', 'frontage tax' et al, as part of how they generate revenue.

Refinancing a home responsibly is crucial. Poor timing can take a wrecking ball to one's dreams. If you're looking at the precipice of a foreclosure, talk to a short sale specialist real estate salesperson / broker ASAP and get those ducks quacking. Generally speaking, the short sale tracks in parallel with the foreclosure process. The short sale can often allow you to walk away from the home without losing any more money . Abandoning the home can end up biting you hard.


Murg7 wrote:


They probably were sabotaging the Republican party's ruling elite, but that ended up hurting Clinton much more than helping her. Because when Trump won the GOP primary the election essentially became an establishment vs anti-establishment contest.

Hillary's numerous Big Media, Big Business, and Big Hollywood backers (and my relatives) simply have no idea how many long-ignored voters have nothing but seething contempt for the Washington DC elite of both parties, and we've been waiting for a chance like this to come along for a long damn time. My whole life.

I had told my relatives that I had given up on the American political system. That I would never vote again (after one furtive protest vote for Kerry against Bush). That there was really no difference between the Dems and Repubs on the issues that I cared about. That it was a good-ole-boy system full of gerrymandering, superdelegates, and rules designed to make it impossible for a third party candidate ever to win high office in this country.

Then Trump unexpectedly came along and I had to tell my relatives I would actually vote one more time. Because a huge electoral upset had put an anti-establishment politician in play for the presidency, and I doubted this chance would ever come again.

Trump would lose of course, and America's ruling elite would get together to make sure another...

I agree with you.


Hi Turin.


54 remaining electoral college votes, of which Trump currently needs but 4 to cinch the Presidency. Wow.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Delightful wrote:
Bruunwald wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
The Norv wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
I'm suggesting that a Secretary of State who has sold/peddled influence to numerous foreign entities and governments for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which the FBI is currently investigating (unlike the emails) is deserving of incarceration if her guilt can be proven, which I believe it will be.

She has been investigated. Again and again and again and again and again. And NOTHING has been found.

So yes, you're free to believe that, and there are MANY problems with HRC, but I cannot understand this line of thinking.

Those investigations were inadequate, and continually hampered by Clinton and her cronies who didn't play ball, and an Obama DOJ who didn't even attempt to seriously investigate her. If Trump wants to go after her, the evidence will be found. Hell, 20% of US uranium is now going to Russia, and investors donated millions to the Clinton foundation. That example alone (out of many) ought to do it.

Again, the "information" you flush into our world through your toilet portal is less actual and more a confection of your lower bowel.

You need to PROVE your wild accusations. With a better source than some paranoid right wing blog.

Given that Trump was able to win this election, I don't think he does.

A bunch of paranoid nutjobs agreeing with their lead paranoid nutjob cannot vindicate a lie.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Lenders don't want to foreclose unless they have no alternative. What they want is all of that tasty interest money every month paid for an asset they don't have to

Not all lenders have a stake in the home.

If you owe me $80,000 for medical bills, I don't care if your house is sold at 30% of it's value as long as I get some of my money (or at least more than I was getting before). Or better yet, you refinance your house, pay the medical bills, then the bank is left on the hook for your house that you can't pay for. Either way, the insurer doesn't give a s&!* about the house, except for how it might be used to pay them off.

Regardless, I think it's ridiculous that if your child gets cancer, there's a path to you losing your home AND your child dying. If you want to convince me that someone has a legitimate plan for solving healthcare, this scenario has to not be possible. Republicans haven't actually pushed anything forward in the past 8 years that would do that (a few Dems have tried, but failed). All they want to do is repeal what we have.

Show me how a plan eliminates bankruptcy due to medical bills and you might get me on board. Otherwise, I won't like it.


Irontruth wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Lenders don't want to foreclose unless they have no alternative. What they want is all of that tasty interest money every month paid for an asset they don't have to

Not all lenders have a stake in the home.

If you owe me $80,000 for medical bills, I don't care if your house is sold at 30% of it's value as long as I get some of my money (or at least more than I was getting before). Or better yet, you refinance your house, pay the medical bills, then the bank is left on the hook for your house that you can't pay for. Either way, the insurer doesn't give a s@!& about the house, except for how it might be used to pay them off.

You're talking about a different type of lender than a mortgage lender, which is what I was describing. My mistake.

$80k in medical bills - yeeeikes!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Killer_GM wrote:
Hi Turin.

Can't sleep either, eh?


Turin the Mad wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Lenders don't want to foreclose unless they have no alternative. What they want is all of that tasty interest money every month paid for an asset they don't have to

Not all lenders have a stake in the home.

If you owe me $80,000 for medical bills, I don't care if your house is sold at 30% of it's value as long as I get some of my money (or at least more than I was getting before). Or better yet, you refinance your house, pay the medical bills, then the bank is left on the hook for your house that you can't pay for. Either way, the insurer doesn't give a s@!& about the house, except for how it might be used to pay them off.

You're talking about a different type of lender than a mortgage lender, which is what I was describing. My mistake.

$80k in medical bills - yeeeikes!!

Yeah, lender isn't the right term, creditor? I don't know bankruptcy law at all really.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Lenders don't want to foreclose unless they have no alternative. What they want is all of that tasty interest money every month paid for an asset they don't have to

Not all lenders have a stake in the home.

If you owe me $80,000 for medical bills, I don't care if your house is sold at 30% of it's value as long as I get some of my money (or at least more than I was getting before). Or better yet, you refinance your house, pay the medical bills, then the bank is left on the hook for your house that you can't pay for. Either way, the insurer doesn't give a s@!& about the house, except for how it might be used to pay them off.

You're talking about a different type of lender than a mortgage lender, which is what I was describing. My mistake.

$80k in medical bills - yeeeikes!!

Yeah, lender isn't the right term, creditor? I don't know bankruptcy law at all really.

A bankruptcy (well, the one I'm aware of for the average person/household) lets you keep your home and some of your valuable personal property. That's the better tack for dealing with retarded medical bills of that significance. My in-laws just wrapped up one earlier this year for something similar IIRC. Nasty business, but now they're in the clear and able to enjoy pending retirement.

Presuming that the GOP-controlled legislature doesn't go apesh*t and jack up the retirement age all of a sudden.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruunwald wrote:
Delightful wrote:
Bruunwald wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
The Norv wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
I'm suggesting that a Secretary of State who has sold/peddled influence to numerous foreign entities and governments for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which the FBI is currently investigating (unlike the emails) is deserving of incarceration if her guilt can be proven, which I believe it will be.

She has been investigated. Again and again and again and again and again. And NOTHING has been found.

So yes, you're free to believe that, and there are MANY problems with HRC, but I cannot understand this line of thinking.

Those investigations were inadequate, and continually hampered by Clinton and her cronies who didn't play ball, and an Obama DOJ who didn't even attempt to seriously investigate her. If Trump wants to go after her, the evidence will be found. Hell, 20% of US uranium is now going to Russia, and investors donated millions to the Clinton foundation. That example alone (out of many) ought to do it.

Again, the "information" you flush into our world through your toilet portal is less actual and more a confection of your lower bowel.

You need to PROVE your wild accusations. With a better source than some paranoid right wing blog.

Given that Trump was able to win this election, I don't think he does.
A bunch of paranoid nutjobs agreeing with their lead paranoid nutjob cannot vindicate a lie.

True, but a lie loses a lot of its meaning and power when a horde of paranoid nutjobs refuse to believe that the lie exists or just go along with it and decide to elect their favorite assclown anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's official folks. Trump is your president. You can begin checking out ways to move to Canada now.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Podesta has announced that Clinton would not be speaking tonight. I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she just didn't expect to lose, and so didn't have anything prepared. As opposed to being mentally/physically/emotionally unable to speak, or simply being petty.

In other news, apparently America has crashed Canada's immigration website.

Edit: The Canada website crash during the election is a true story.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ajaxis wrote:

Podesta has announced that Clinton would not be speaking tonight. I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she just didn't expect to lose, and so didn't have anything prepared. As opposed to being mentally/physically/emotionally unable to speak, or simply being petty.

Hoping for not being petty, I agree, but I honestly wouldn't fault her for being an emotional wreck at this point. This is the second time in a bid for the presidency she's gotten close, but fell, hard. This time probably hurts even more, because every single measurement showed that she should have won this by a landslide, at least based on every major poll...including most Republican


Wow. 276 and counting for Trump, unless the Electoral College goes against 200+ years of historical behavior.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If there was ever a time for the electoral college to buck the trend now would be it.

6,851 to 6,900 of 7,079 << first < prev | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards